A specifically pleaded disputed partition must be framed as an additional issue under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC.

The petitioners were Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in Civil Suit No. 21A/2024 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jashpur.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had instituted the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of 7.190 hectares of land comprising 14 khasra numbers situated at Village Painku, District Jashpur.

The plaintiffs pleaded that no partition had taken place in respect of the suit land and that the co-sharers continued to possess it according to their convenience.

The petitioners specifically pleaded in their written statement that the ancestors of the parties had already effected a mutual family partition and that the respective branches had been in separate possession of their allotted lands.

They therefore applied under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for framing of additional issues concerning the alleged prior partition.

The trial Court rejected the application by order dated 15 May 2026.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the trial Court erred in refusing to frame a specific additional issue regarding the alleged prior mutual partition of the suit properties between the ancestors of the parties?

Whether the proposed additional issue was necessary for determining the matters in controversy and enabling the parties to lead appropriate evidence?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, which empowers the Court, at any time before passing a decree, to amend issues or frame additional issues where necessary for determining the matters in controversy, and also to strike out wrongly framed issues.

It further relied on Order XIV Rule 3 CPC, under which issues may be framed from the parties’ pleadings, statements made on oath, answers to interrogatories, and documents produced by the parties.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to correct the trial Court’s refusal to frame a necessary issue.

The governing principle was that a specific issue must be framed where the pleadings disclose a material and disputed question of fact essential to the effective adjudication of the suit.

The pleadings revealed a direct and material conflict: the plaintiffs asserted that no partition had taken place, whereas the petitioners expressly pleaded that the ancestors had effected a mutual family partition and that the parties had thereafter remained in separate possession of their respective allotted lands.

Since the existence or non-existence of such partition would materially affect the parties’ claims to title, possession, and injunction, it constituted a disputed question of fact requiring adjudication.

Under Order XIV Rules 3 and 5 CPC, the trial Court was required to frame an issue enabling the parties to lead evidence on that controversy.

The High Court accepted that the proposed Issue No. 2 was relevant and necessary, while noting that proposed Issue No. 1 was already inherent in an issue previously framed by the trial Court.

It set aside the trial Court’s order dated 15 May 2026 to the extent that it rejected the petitioners’ request for framing of proposed Issue No. 2.

The trial Court was directed to frame the following issue:

“Whether the 14 plots mentioned in Schedule A, measuring in total 7.190 hectares, had already been partitioned by mutual family partition, and whether Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are in actual possession in accordance with that partition?”

The trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

The remaining portion of the impugned order was left undisturbed.